Congressional ethics

03/09/2017

American democracy has reached a sad state of affairs. Partisanship and allegiance to one’s political party is currently considered by many politicians to be more important than patriotism and concern for the nation. The United States has elected a president around whom questions swirl, regarding his and his surrogates’ association with Russia prior to his assuming the presidency, and whether there was Russian interference in the electoral process.

Depending on what the answers to these questions are, it is possible that the president may have been guilty of treason, possibly a lesser crime, or possibly nothing at all. But in America in times past, both political parties would be anxious to learn the answers to the questions about Trump and his surrogates’ communications with Russian agents, how they affected the election, and what they portend for the future relationship of America and Russia.

Nixon’s crimes involved nefarious actions to aid his election campaign and then covering up and lying about these actions. But they all occurred within the confines of the country and did not involve any contact with a foreign nation to help him or damage his opponent. Yet Republicans, members of his own party, as well as the Democrats, wanted to know what he had done and whether it contravened the laws of the nation. A select committee was formed by the Senate in a unanimous vote to investigate Nixon’s conduct and open hearings were held and televised by the major networks to allow the public access to the information that was being uncovered.

Here, with Trump and his surrogates, there is possibly a more serious crime if he colluded with the Russians to aid him in his election bid, or made some sort of agreement with them prior to becoming president. One would think that Senators and members of Congress from both political parties would be screaming for an investigation to be held and to be done quickly. If there was some sort of agreement with the Russians or illegal contact, should Trump be sitting in the White House conducting the nation’s foreign policy? On the other hand, if nothing illegal occurred, shouldn’t we all be privy to that information, secure in the knowledge that there are no secret agreements with the Russians and that they did not play an active role in Trump’s election.

In addition to learning about all the contact between Trump’s surrogates and the Russians and what their objectives were, the investigators should probe the Wikileaks leaks and where their information came from. Who hacked the DNC computers and who hacked Podesta’s emails? How was their release decided so it would affect the election? There is no question that foreign players attempted to damage Hillary. If it was not the Russians, who was it, and why? How can we keep our electoral process safe in the future, so that outsiders cannot influence the results? And Trump’s outrageous statements about Obama tapping his phones at Trump Tower without any proof can also be investigated.

There are a lot of important questions that need to be answered about the last election. Why aren’t both parties up in arms about interference in our electoral process and demanding an investigation of every unanswered question? Why isn’t there a special commission already investigating these questions? The GOP is putting party before country in its unwillingness to back an open special investigating commission.

05/25/2016

There is a Democratic president in office with Republican controlled House and Senate. Can they work together to make government function well? The right-wing’s hostility to President Obama has interfered with government operations since his inauguration. It appears to have only worsened with time. Instead of putting country over party, conservative Republicans have played to their base, trying to make life difficult for the president and not allow him any victories.

The Senate’s refusal to confirm Obama’s candidate to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, a centrist judge with impeccable credentials, is another example of Republican partisanship, ignoring past precedent. The Republican action is pure politics. No other nominee for the Supreme Court has ever been rejected in a president’s last year in office, but the Republican right-wing is unmoved and wants to wait to choose a candidate when Obama is out of office. GOP Senators are afraid that Garland would tip the Court to the left, when Scalia had been strongly conservative, as had the Court itself been for decades.

With the Court now split between four conservatives and four liberals, four to four rulings are coming from the Court and will continue, resulting in judicial paralysis. Though a majority of Americans want the Senate to vote on Garland up or down for the Court, the Republicans are turning a deaf ear to this desire. The rulings made by Federal Courts of Appeal will often stand as law, until a ninth Supreme Court Justice is finally confirmed by the Senate whose Republican members do not care about the judicial gridlock.

As bad as the rejection of Garland by Republicans has been their obstructionism in filling federal court appointments recommended by Obama, causing difficulties in the courts’ ability to function, with heavy caseloads for justices and long delays in handling cases. As of February 2016, eleven federal district court nominees were awaiting votes by the full Senate and twenty-five judicial appointments had not yet passed the Judicial Committee. The battle between Obama and the Republican Senators over federal court nominations at the appeals court level was ongoing even before Scalia’s death opened up the Supreme Court seat.

With the GOP regaining control of the Senate in January 2015, Republican Senators blocked Obama’s attempt to fill vacancies on regional federal courts of appeal. The senators refused to approve of candidates for judgeships in their states ahead of formal nomination, the process that had previously been in place and almost automatic. Right-wing conservative groups and commentators had pressured senators not to allow Obama to make any more appointments to the upper ranks of the judiciary, as these judges often are the final arbiters in cases that the Supreme Court does not review.

There are also one hundred and forty three nominees for non-judicial federal jobs awaiting confirmations by the Senate, with the Republicans using their majority to delay the installation of Obama’s choices. Some of these are important bureaucratic jobs that deal with national security and terrorism. Included was Secretary of the Army for which Eric Fanning was nominated in September 2015 and finally confirmed in May 2016. Numerous ambassadorial appointments remain in limbo as well for partisan reasons, some of them to large nations with which relations with the United States had been problematic. And some GOP members of Congress want to impeach the head of the IRS over issues that were present before his appointment, claiming that he lied to them in testimony.

The fact that the federal court system is backlogged and not functioning well has not seemed to move highly partisan Republican senators to act. The fact that a number of the federal government’s agencies are not operating optimally also has had no effect on the GOP. More important to them is making Obama and the federal government look bad to Americans. Politics is more of an impetus to Republicans than having the government work.

01/20/2016

As an important election approaches, Americans should remember that the power in Washington and state capitals does not reside with elected officials alone. Like a cancer that has metastasized to all democratic nations, lobbyists use their influence and other people’s money to entice legislators, executives, and officeholders in different government agencies to make or interpret the laws in ways that will benefit them or their clients. Much of the corruption seen in democratic nations is the result of interactions between government personnel in positions of power and men and women with money and other favors to disburse who have gained access to them.

Who are these lobbyists that meddle in democratic proceedings and whose voices are heard above those of the electorate? Lobbyists are individuals who act as intermediaries for special interests or advocacy groups, attempting to influence legislation and executive actions, or win government contracts. They are often former members of congress, senators, or staff members, high level employees of government agencies or departments, or retired military personnel. Because of their previous positions, they have access to legislators who are writing laws and to members of the executive branch or top military officers who can make important decisions.

Special interests include a multitude of corporations seeking government contracts for products or services, government subsidies or special tax breaks, protection from foreign competitors through tariffs or import restrictions, or the waiving of environmental regulations. Unions and labor groups are special interests that want to maintain or raise wages, or want protection from low wage workers abroad. Farmers may want subsidies for their crops or protection from imports. Cities, states and counties, foreign governments, social and religious advocacy groups, health organizations, environmental groups, the National Rifle Association and gun control groups, and countless others also act as special interest groups. All of these entities try to promote their own concerns and values, over and above those of the general public.

Members of Congress, senators, and legislators feel indebted to those who contribute to their campaign funds or raise money for them. Anyone or any group that provides significant aid gets access to the official, and perhaps that lawmaker’s willingness to craft legislation that benefits that person or group. Or perhaps a willingness to block other legislation perceived as harmful. This quid pro quo makes legislators resistant to meaningful campaign finance reform, which along with lobbying reform could change the political structure now in place. Aside from the campaign help, many politicians and their staffers also accept personal blandishments from lobbyists, such as trips, dinners, and direct financial rewards (supposedly prohibited), or the promise of plush jobs in the future. And the task of addressing the nation’s real problems, making hard choices and confronting divisive questions goes undone.

The list of government officials who have subsequently become lobbyists is extensive. Many appear to have been rewarded for work performed while in government that benefited special interests, while others were hired for their potential clout in future dealings with government agencies. A prime example of the first scenario is former Republican Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, who helped shepherd the Medicare prescription drug bill through Congress in 2003. He retired soon afterwards and became president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the drug industry lobby, where he was able to command millions in salary and benefits. An example of the second is conservative Republican John Ashcroft, who had been a senator from Missouri and attorney general for President Bush. Upon leaving the government, he started a lobbying firm in the fall of 2005, quickly establishing a stable of prominent clients. Though Ashcroft had been head of the Justice Department a short time earlier, his firm represented Oracle in its attempts to persuade the Justice Department there were no anti-trust implications in a billion dollar acquisition it was pursuing. Needless to say, Oracle was successful and Ashcroft received $220,000 for his work.

Over 2200 former federal employees registered as lobbyists from 1998 to 2004, including 273 previous members of the White House staff and almost 250 members of Congress and heads of federal agencies. During this period, 50% of senators and 42% of congressmen who left office became lobbyists, 52% of departing Republicans and 33% of the Democrats. Total spending by lobbyists which was $1.44 billion in 1997, grew to $2.38 billion in 2005 according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In 2009, according to the Senate Office of Public Records, the top twenty industries alone spent $2.22 billion on lobbying. The 2010 mid-term elections saw the lion’s share of funding disbursed by special interests and lobbyists go to the Republicans who were perceived as the probable victors. The amounts given increased significantly, the result of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court earlier in 2010 that struck down the limitations on corporate spending for political campaigns. By 2014, the number of lobbyists had grown to almost 12,000 individuals and the total spent on lobbying was over $3.2 billion. While not all politicians are intimately tied to lobbyists and special interests, the vast majority are, and even the most righteous have to cooperate to some degree if they want to get re-elected.

Though the rules and permissible conduct may vary from country to country, lobbying occurs universally in democratic nations, as the affluent, businesses, and special interests try to interact with politicians and officials to derive the advantages that government can provide. Lobbyists at times can also be helpful in conveying information to legislators or officials of which they may not be aware, particularly when they are new to their positions. However, lobbyists have been known to write the bills that legislators have presented to Congress or state bodies, or regulations that officials put into effect that bolster specific interests. Lobbyists and government officials too often ignore the ethical boundaries that should separate them when both can benefit greatly from the interactions between them, and what each side has to offer the other. But how can meaningful reform be effected?

06/16/2015

Should be no surprise. Sexual abuse, corruption, and hypocrisy. Politicians at work. Within the last decade’s tally of sexual transgressions by politician’s holding federal offices we had Senator John Ensign of Nevada (who slept with an employee who was his best friend’s wife), Senator David Vitter of Louisiana who frequented high-end prostitutes (but was forgiven by God and his wife and re-elected), Senator Larry Craig of Idaho who made advances to a plain clothes policeman in an airport bathroom, Representative Mark Foley of Florida who went after underage Senate pageboys, Representative Anthony Wiener who texted his genitals to uninterested women, and Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina who was elected to Congress by the good citizens of South Carolina in spite of his affair and lying about his whereabouts as governor (took the Appalachian trail). We don’t know how many other sexual misadventures never saw the light of day. But if state and local officials were included, the list could become endless. Of course, we also had politicians who committed “only” financial crimes without illicit sexual activity. And now we have former Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert in the spotlight.

Republican Speaker of the House from 1999 to 2007, Dennis Hastert, previously one of the most powerful politicians in the nation, appears to have been involved in sexual crimes before his election to Congress, then committed financial crimes during and after his service in the House. These were done both to cover-up his sexual felonies and for personal enrichment. Though once second in line for the presidency, his office was a fountain of corruption while he was a member of Congress and particularly while he was Speaker. Involved in real estate deals and purchasing land with partners in Illinois, he used an earmark to fund a highway interchange a mile from the land he had bought (the interchange opposed by the Illinois Department of Transportation and local residents). Needless to say, he realized a huge profit from his transaction when the value of the land soared.

He also protected Tom DeLay and other ethically challenged Republican Congressmen, firing the GOP members of the Ethics Committee when they reprimanded DeLay in 2004. As the author of the “Hastert rule,” he would not allow bills to be voted on by the House unless they were first passed by a majority of Republicans, not permitting any Democratic input and increasing partisanship. Though subsisting on a high school teacher’s salary before his election to Congress, his net worth upon his departure was estimated at between $4 million and $17 million. And after leaving Congress, like so many of his colleagues, Hastert became a lobbyist.

His recent transgressions which resulted in his indictment involved lying to the FBI and conducting illegal bank transfers.

It appears that much of this activity was to cover-up sexual felonies committed by Hastert while he was still a high school teacher and wrestling coach in Illinois. He apparently abused at least two male students at the school and was using the money he was withdrawing to pay for the silence of one of the students, having given him $1.7 million by the time he was indicted. The other boy with whom Hastert had relations subsequently died of AIDS in 1995. His told his sister before dying that he was gay and that his first homosexual contact had been with Hastert, their relationship lasting throughout his high school years. Hastert is a family values, conservative Republican, so hypocrisy can be placed on top of his criminal acts, immorality, and unethical behavior, not an unusual pathway for a politician.

Hastert was a man who might have been president in spite of the conduct noted above, and an individual of great power in Congress who helped determine the direction of the nation. Is there something wrong with the way citizens attain power in America’s democracy?

02/11/2015

Can it be done? Can American citizens roll back the actions of Congress and a conservative activist Supreme Court that are working to transform a flawed democracy into a plutocratic state? Currently, the situation looks grim with political changes already occurring on federal, state and local levels.

Money has always played a role in politics, with corporations, unions, and wealthy people contributing funds to candidates for office. Donors then have access to those who have been elected, being able to influence the laws and regulations that are subsequently instituted. However, limits on the amounts that can be contributed to politicians have been legislated at times (McCain-Feingold 2002) to try and reduce the quid pro quo that occurs, but often, the funds have been given under the table to escape any restrictions that are in place.

Though backroom deals and illegal campaign financing undoubtedly still happens, they are no longer necessary as federal actions have made virtually unlimited funding of political campaigns by wealthy citizens lawful. Because of this, plutocracy is inevitable in America, with control of the government in the hands of the wealthy and the guaranteed passage of laws that will disproportionately benefit them instead of the electorate and nation as a whole.

The Supreme Court with its conservative leaning started the plutocratic ball rolling, when the justices’ handed down the Citizens United and McCutcheon rulings that equated the spending of money on political issues with freedom of speech. These were highly partisan five to four decisions, with Republicans lining up on one side and Democrats on the other. The rulings allow corporations, unions, and the very wealthy to spend their money with essentially no restrictions to elect candidates whose positions are in harmony with their views. In another gift to the plutocrats, funds by the affluent can be contributed anonymously and tax-free to non-profit 501(c))(4) corporations that can use the money to support or attack political positions and candidates, as long as some amount is being spent for charitable purposes.

Yet another gift was handed to the very affluent by Congressional politicians last year with a rider attached to the budget bill that had absolutely nothing to do with the budget. In their infinite wisdom, Congress multiplied the contributions the wealthy could donate to political parties by a factor of twenty. Previously, McCain-Feingold had restricted the amount a person could give a political party to $32,400 annually. The budget bill increased this to $324,000, doubling that sum for the two year election cycle, and raising it to $1,296,000 for a married couple. This is obviously legislation that will not affect the average American citizen. But the money is peanuts for many multi-millionaires and billionaires, and will provide them with even more access to lawmakers.

Given the opportunity, those champions of American plutocracy, the Koch brothers, have decided to raise the stakes their political network will employ in the 2016 campaign, to elect men and women to state and federal offices who reflect the Koch views. Their organization will utilize nearly $900 million dollars (perhaps a few hundred million more if necessary) in this election cycle, about the same amount the political parties intend to spend (if they can raise that much). The Koch funds can be used for television and online advertising, monopolizing the best spots early, and for political organizing, targeting voters who appear to support their candidates and making sure that they cast their ballots. (Hooray for free speech.)

Because of the actions of the very wealthy and their clandestine organizations, the political system is already in the process of transformation as shown in recent elections for state and federal offices. The presidency has been the exception, but its capture by the plutocrats is merely a matter of time. These extremely affluent individuals want a smaller government with less rules and regulations that limit businesses, especially the fossil fuel industries. They also want to dampen union activity, reduce taxes, fewer redistributive policies that aid the poor and middle classes, minimum wages kept in check, and so forth.

With the Supreme Court and Congress supporting the move towards plutocracy and with more and more money being injected into political campaigns, can anything be done to reverse the process? Public financing of campaigns are necessary with strict restrictions on donations to candidates and the elimination of 501(c)(4) organizations in politics. This will never happen with Republicans controlling Congress and the Supreme Court. American voters need to take more of an interest in politics and be informed about the actions of their state and federal governments. With enough pressure from an electorate that cares and makes funding of campaigns an issue, perhaps sometime in the future a constitutional amendment can be passed that limits money in politics, nullifying the plutocratic control of the government. It won’t be easy with all the wealth arrayed against reform.

12/17/2014

The political yahoos finally left for home. But before they did, the House and Senate passed a “compromise” spending bill last week. That had the pundits talking about how Washington was finally working again and that legislation that would not cause a presidential veto in the next session might be possible. But look what these scummy politicians inserted into the spending bill that had nothing to do with the running of the government over significant resistance from the right and the left (for different reasons).

The left, led by Senator Elizabeth Warren, was deeply upset by a provision that rolled back important aspects of Dodd-Frank legislation, giving a gift to Wall Street that will keep giving. Warren called it “a giveaway to the most powerful banks in this country.” Some on the right also voiced their displeasure with this provision. After the last recession, which was initiated by Wall Street speculation that went awry, one would have thought that the politicians in Washington would have been wary of allowing Wall Street to start playing the same game. The particular issue was the reversal of some of the regulations contained in Dodd-Frank, permitting the big banks to speculate in the derivatives market again.

You might ask two questions about this. Why should this kind of action have been inserted into a government spending bill? And why should Congress have given permission to the banks to engage in highly speculative trading, when it almost destroyed the western economic system and was a major factor in the recession?

The first question is easy to answer. Since a spending bill had to be passed to avert a government shutdown, why not add other legislation to it that was not likely to be enacted if it stood alone. Wall Street had been lobbying for the ability to trade in derivatives and the spending bill was an opportunity for those Senators and members of Congress indebted to the big banks for their campaign funding and other perks to get it done. A great show of bipartisanship!

Answering the second question is more difficult. Trading in derivatives by the banks provides no benefits to American citizens and it puts taxpayers on the hook if the banks lose large enough sums of money to threaten the economy. However, derivatives trading can generate large profits for the banks (if they bet correctly and their algorithms are accurate), which could mean big bonuses for bank executives. The bankers claim that given the new higher reserves they are required to keep, there is less risk in any trading they do. This may be true, but why should banks be engaged in speculative activity when it is not part of their core mission, does not benefit American citizens, and does entail some systemic risk. It appears that most officeholders in Washington don’t care about putting taxpayers at risk, as long as money keeps flowing to them from Wall Street. Commercial banks apparently gave over $25 million to candidates for the House and Senate in the 2014 election cycle, and officeholders want that funding to continue.

But lawmakers were not just going after Wall Street money in the spending bill. Also inserted were provisions that allowed wealthy individuals and corporations to give up to $777,600 yearly to party committees and funds, and their campaign arms, and double that in each two year cycle- up to $1,555,200. The current annual cap is $32,400, so this bill is an overwhelming jackpot for the parties and the politicians, wiping out previous campaign restrictions. Again, this was done in a bipartisan fashion, snuck into a bill where it did not belong, with no one willing to take credit for crafting this provision. (Oh, and by the way, there were multiple other agreements slipped into the bill that benefitted particular areas, industries, non-profits, and so forth, which were similar to the earmarks that had supposedly been banned by Congress.)

Bye-bye McCain-Feingold and any attempts to limit money to the politicians and the parties. The Supreme Court opened the spigot in the first place by their rulings equating political funding with free speech. But the provisions in the spending bill turned the money spigot wide open for all the politicians and the parties. Hooray for the Supreme Court and hooray for bipartisanship. Bye-bye democracy.

10/21/2014

Public approval ratings for Congress have remained consistently low for a number of years, though recently they have reached depths not previously seen. Americans seem to overwhelmingly agree that members of Congress are doing a terrible job, yet incumbents keep getting repeatedly reelected. Are citizens lying in response to the pollsters’ questions, or is something being missed by either those taking the surveys or the political scientists who are interpreting them.

A Gallop Poll last week reported that only 14 percent of Americans were satisfied with the performance of Congress. This is only five percentage points above the all-time low of 9 percent in November of 2013. Among other questions that were asked, 63 percent of respondents said that reelecting the current members of Congress would be bad for the country and 78 percent believed that Congress would be better if all the incumbents were replaced with new members. In addition, 81 percent of the public felt that most members of Congress were out of touch with the average American, 69 percent thought that most members of Congress focused on the needs of the special interests, and 54 percent felt that most members of Congress were corrupt.

How does one explain the disconnect? The vast majority of citizens are unhappy with Congress and its incumbent members, and still sitting Congressmen and women are reelected over and over again. Another paradoxical bit of information that doesn’t jibe with the rest of the Gallop Poll’s statistics is that large numbers of Americans (though far from a majority) say they are content with their own member of Congress even though they are dissatisfied with Congress as a whole and believe most members of Congress are out of touch, help special interests, and are corrupt. Does that make any sense?

Could it have to do with voters’ name recognition of their own members of Congress instead of considering anonymous politicians who make up the entire body of Congress? A percentage of citizens in each district have some familiarity with their own Congressmen and women. In fact, they may have even voted for that individual. So instead of familiarity breeding contempt, a modicum of familiarity may make that person more likeable, or at least acceptable, to the voters of his or her district than the faceless mass of Congressmen and women.

However, maybe the divergence between Americans’ perceptions of Congress as a whole and each citizen’s view of his or her member of Congress is partially the result of ignorance. Americans know that Congress is doing a poor job, so members of Congress overall have a tarnished reputation. But if you’ve voted for, or had contact with someone, or he or she is a neighbor of sorts (from your district), you don’t want to think badly of that person. Thus, if you’re unaware of your member of Congress’s legislative work, or his or her stance on important issues, you give him or her a free pass and don’t tar that individual with Congress’s reputation. It’s your lack of knowledge that has made him or her seem better than the rest of the body of Congress, when actually there’s little difference. After all, he or she is first and foremost a politician.

American politicians will do or say virtually anything to get elected or reelected, spending more time raising funds and campaigning, then taking care of the country’s business. The low level of regard Americans have for Congress is well deserved, but it should also extend to its individual members. Throw the bums (incumbents) out, particularly those who have refused to compromise and do their jobs legislating for the good of the country.

08/26/2014

Sometimes change to a cherished tradition is necessary. When the Constitution was written in 1787, it was a kind of experiment. There was no history of previous similar central governments as were detailed in the Constitution. James Madison and other contributors to the document utilized the ideas of a number of enlightenment philosophers when they crafted the Constitution, but the specific structure of the government and the process of governing were created de novo.

The president was to be elected indirectly by the Electoral College every four years, Senators chosen by the state legislatures for six year terms, and members of Congress were to be elected directly by the people every two years. However, the realization that there might be a better way of choosing senators led to the XVII Amendment to the Constitution, enacted in 1913, which allowed the people of each state to elect their senators directly. For a number of reasons, the terms of members of Congress should be changed to three years. A Constitutional Amendment will be necessary to do this, but the change would be beneficial for the nation.

Huge amounts of money are now being spent on every election including those for members of Congress. With elections occurring every two years for Congressional seats, running for Congress entails virtually a continuous campaign, focusing on raising adequate funds to try and hold onto these Congressional seats as soon as members are first elected. When not trying to generate money, members of Congress generally visit their districts as much as possible in order to mix with their constituents. This Congressional traveling means that the institution is out of session more than it is in session, with members campaigning and raising money instead of working on legislation, holding hearings, attending committee meetings, and so forth. Rather than having a full five day work week handling government business, work weeks for Congress have shrunken to two and a half or three days. There are also long vacation periods and times when Congress adjourns without any façade of working. Is it any wonder that less legislation is being passed by Congress in recent sessions, and much of what is passed is to please the party base back home and has no chance of being enacted by the Senate?

The fund raising and campaigning goes on in spite of the fact that incumbency is almost a sure ticket to re-election in Congress. The rates for Congressional incumbents to get re-elected if they are running again usually is between 90-95%, though in some election cycles it is even higher. Incumbents accrue campaign funding from lobbyists and special interests which helps place their advertising before the public and allows them to trash their opponents almost continuously with negative advertising. In addition, incumbents have the advantage of name recognition with their constituents which help them accumulate votes. The media in their districts also provide them with free publicity, with the press following them around and writing stories about them. Gerrymandering by the state legislatures has also created “safe districts” for many members of Congress, making fund raising and campaigning almost an unnecessary exercise. However, excess money can be shifted to party members in swing districts to help with their campaigns. Having a party majority in the House is important for getting legislation to the floor and receiving important committee appointments.

A number of political analysts have suggested that low voter turnout in American elections may be at least partly due to the frequency of campaigning and elections. All but the most rabid party adherents get turned off by these campaigns and elections, tuning out the advertising and not bothering to vote. Having Congressional elections every three years instead of every two years would be an improvement that might have more constituents participate in the political process. More time would also be available for members of Congress to pass legislation and actually get things done. There is no reason why Congressional elections every two years shouldn’t be changed to every three years.

07/17/2014

Few would disagree with the observation that Washington is dysfunctional. Much necessary legislation fails to be enacted and many federal agencies’ performance is below par. One of the main reasons is that the Republicans and Democrats have different perceptions about the size and role of government. The Republicans want a much smaller Federal government and are unwilling to raise taxes or increase revenues if that will lead to heightened government spending or more government employees. The Democrats want to elevate the government’s revenues in various ways, including higher taxes on the wealthy. This would result in increased government spending on infrastructure, health care, and so forth, and the size of the government would grow.

However, the role and size of the federal government should not be the focus of the conflict between the two parties. Whether it is bigger or smaller is not as important as whether it is efficient, and whether different government agencies perform their designated functions effectively without wasting money and manpower. Unfortunately, both the executive and legislative branches of the government appear to be incapable of accomplishing their assigned tasks. Part of the problem is the unwillingness of Congress to provide adequate funds for some federal agencies or for critical programs such as the repair and building of the nation’s infrastructure. (Often when money is allotted for programs it is done through gimmicks that increase the national debt rather than by increased federal revenue.)

The Congressional stalemate and inability of the House and Senate to pass legislation is a prime example of legislative inefficiency. Added to that is the unwillingness of individual legislators to allow cuts to favored programs, either for ideological reasons or because they provide jobs for their states or districts. One merely has to look at the conflicts that occurred over base closings when recommendations by special commissions were overridden by Congress. Or weapons programs that the military didn’t want but were provided for them never-the-less by the “military experts” in Congress.

And the role Congress is supposed to play in oversight of the executive branch has become mainly a political exercise, with a chance for one party to skewer the other. While House Republicans are particularly good at this, the Democrats play the same game when they have the opportunity. Thus, Congressional oversight has become useless in driving federal agencies to perform their tasks more efficiently and in a cost-effective manner. Congress also impacts the efficiency of the executive branch by refusing to confirm ambassadors for the state department and other officials in different federal departments.

Aside from lack of oversight and inaction from Congress, most federal agencies, which are supposedly under control of the executive branch, are far from efficient in executing their designated functions. If what they did was done cost-effectively and produced the proper results, perhaps there would not be so much conflict about their size and roles. Even the Government Accountability Office which is supposed to monitor the various agencies does not perform its job well.

The examples of federal agency failures are almost too numerous to list. Recently the VA and the IRS have come under scrutiny for their poor performance, and the Pentagon’s management of weapons procurement is a constant debacle. Cost overruns are almost automatic with the military. The National Security Agency mess with the release of information by Edward Snowden is another illustration of inefficiency, with spying on allies like Germany and Prime Minister Merkel (and getting caught). The Department of Justice’s inability to convict executives of the financial firms responsible for the sub-prime mortgage mayhem, and send them to prison also reeks of inefficiency and incompetence. And remember the DOJ and the Fast and Furious disaster? The CDC has also come under fire recently for its mistakes in handling highly infectious material. We could go on and on.

What it all comes down to is that we don’t need a smaller or larger sized government but one that functions efficiently. The executive branch, with the federal agencies under its aegis, and the legislative branch, responsible for oversight and appropriations, need to get their acts together and give American citizens the government they need and deserve, instead of endless bickering and attempts at political one-upsmanship. Any bets on whether it will happen?

04/23/2014

There are so many negative aspects of democracy that it is difficult to focus on one particular problem as being responsible for the failure of democratic elections to produce good government. However, virtually all of the problems with the democratic process result from one aspect that appears to be resistant to correction- the unwillingness of the electorate to study the policies and values of the candidates running for office, to have a better understanding of how they will perform once they are elected.

This failure on the part of the voters in many nations to learn about their candidates has resulted in democracy becoming increasingly autocratic, with one individual or one group taking control of the government on a permanent basis. Democracy in these countries has essentially been eliminated, with officials no longer elected, or the elections when conducted being unfair, held under the aegis of the government that is in power, with the media completely under the thumb of the ruling group. This type of progression to autocracy has occurred in Russia and Turkey, as well as a number of African nations, and the chances that a return to democracy will occur in the future are small.

In the United States and other western countries, an overt transformation to autocracy has not been seen. However, the ignorance of the electorate and their lack of knowledge about the issues and the candidates, has allowed partisanship and corruption to dominate politics, making the system increasingly dysfunctional, with an inability to pass the necessary legislation that would allow the government to operate appropriately.

Extreme partisans in both parties, elected by voters who did not investigate their policies or values, have become dominant in the political parties, refusing to compromise on important issues and driving the parties to take more extreme positions. In addition, they have allowed the entire electoral process to become more corrupt, aided by recent rulings of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, an unelected body controlled by conservatives, has equated the spending of money in politics with free speech. In their Citizens United and McCutcheon rulings the Court overturned past laws regarding political spending, expanding the amount of money individuals and corporations could donate to political parties or to Super PACs, with donations to the latter groups allowed to be clandestine if the Super PACs also were involved in social issues. These ruling skew the balance of political power even more into the hands of the affluent, allowing them greater control of the political process. In addition, the rulings increase the opportunities for corruption, with politicians anxious to get their hands on the greater amounts of money now available for political campaigns. The reforms on campaign financing that followed Watergate have essentially been thrown out.

To see what new rulings hath wrought, we only have to look at the way potential Republican presidential candidates came crawling on their knees to Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson a few weeks ago, hoping to get his financial backing for their campaigns. The Center for Responsive Politics estimated that the 2012 election campaigns cost about $6 billion, an absolutely insane number that subverts the idea of democracy. The 2016 elections will far surpass this, as will every subsequent election in the future.

American citizens can accept that this is how elections will be financed in the future, or they can get more involved in the political process and work for a constitutional amendment that will limit the amount of money individuals and corporation can spend on political campaigns. A constitutional amendment will not be able to be overturned by the Supreme Court and it will take campaign financing out of the hands of wealthy American, making our elections fair once more. Is America a beacon of democracy for the rest of the world or are we just another nation dominated by corruption and partisanship, with a few affluent individuals who are willing to spend from their fortunes to gain political power.